[jjacob]

Good work doroposo! I'm beginning to think you actually put more effort into diagnosing/fixing SF issues than the SF themselves have Did you use the official SF driver removal tool or the third party one? I used the official one first but to be on the safe side I then downloaded and ran the third party one, which also detected the SF driver still present Looks like they either don't know how to completely remove their own product, or are unwilling to, in either case: .. and

[Stoofa]

I secretly love it when stuff about Starforce and Sony's rootkits etc. come up and people get all furious. Stick it to the man, man! *cheesy sunglasses wearing smilie*

[nikoniko]

Back in 1998 I installed Alexa software on my computer, and they happily and secretly collected all sorts of personal information from my web browsing, including my social security number, which I had to type to access my online banking account. Someone figured out what Alexa was up to, and two years and a class action suit later, I and quite a few other people received $2000 each and free credit reports for 10 years. The man stuck it to us, and we stuck it back... at least a little bit. Probably could've gotten significantly more in an individual lawsuit, but it was convenient to let someone else take care of it. Sure, in the end, the lawyers here were the big winners, but I don't begrudge them that, as they provided a useful service.

By the way, if Jeysie is out there reading this... Jeysie, did Massachusetts ever stop requiring people to display their social security numbers on all personal paper checks? Gee, that was smart... everyone you'd write a check to had your name, home address, phone, and social security number. A little research to find out your birthdate, and anyone could open a line of credit in your name. I guess we were still naive back then...

[Jeysie]

Doroposo:

Er, well... I spent ~7 years working off and on as a cashier, and I don't think I remember such a thing, so they must have stopped years ago. It certainly isn't a requirement now.

Edit: Now that I think about it some more, I do know that lots of stores required your State ID or Driver's License number on the check, so it was much easier just to get it pre-printed. And the state used to use your SSN as your ID/license number. That might be what you were thinking, perhaps?

In any case, you can now have a "state number" instead of your SSN anyway, if you so choose. (I have a non-SSN on my own state ID, which I got back in 1998.)

Peace & Luv, Liz

[nikoniko]

Ahh, I misremembered then. I combined a memory of opening my Amherst bank account and being told by the bank employee that I needed to print SSN on my checks with one of working at CVS and copying the SSN from people's drivers licenses when their checks did not have it pre-printed. In any case, the effect was the same: you were giving your social security number to someone who didn't need it, who also possessed your name, address and phone number. I'm glad to hear you can choose not to have your SSN on State ID and drivers licenses. I don't remember being given the option not to when I got mine, but it's probably fuzzy memory again. *sigh*

What were we talking about again?

Oh, that's right, the topic is Starforce. I had hoped to do some more experiments, but my uncle's death over the weekend put a damper on my mood. I don't need to be willingly subjecting myself to something unpleasant when I've already got a funeral to deal with. I was thinking of posting a link to this topic over on the Ubisoft forums, hoping to inspire others to get involved in testing, but I know some of the people over there would just show up and turn this into a flame war, which isn't helpful to serious investigation at all. Maybe I can just repost my findings there and leave out any mention of our reasonably well-behaved forum.

[jjacob]

My condolences!

[CrimsonBlue]

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3148721

Also, check out the comments where you find link to the official forum administrator asking for scans of a magazine (he couldn't find it online).

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by CrimsonBlue

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3148721

Originally Posted by 1up

Much maligned anti-piracy software developer Starforce has sunk to a shocking new low in making a case for using its product. In a posting on its company messageboards an admin (who may or may not be directly employed by the company) included in a post the link to an active torrent file trading link for the recently released Galactic Civilizations 2. The link has subsequently been removed, but the text of the post remains. The poster states "Right now several thousands of people are downloading the pirated version only from that web-site. Is it good for the sales? Unlikely." This brazen release of the url and accompanying statement smacks of the strong-arm tactics you only see in gangster movies when someone doesn't cough-up the money for "protection."

Hm... While I agree that posting that link was arguably the stupidest of Starforce PR flops, I honestly fail to see the analogy with gangster movies. Interestingly, the news poster somehow neglected to mention that the link was a response to GalCiv developers' article about how they believe piracy doesn't hurt their game (as such, hardly being "making a case for using its product". At most "for using any copy protection system"). Let's just take 1up's word about much maligned developer sinking to a new low. Long live balanced journalism, I guess.

And let us remember than mods and admins ("who may or may not be directly employed by the company" - would it be really that hard to check whether he was?) are only people, too. It's not the same as Starforce as a company releasing a statement or taking an action. And the controversial link has been removed, so I think they themselves aren't denying the fact they had crossed the line with posting it.

On a side note: I hope folks do realise that GalCiv commercial success does not in any way back up the theory that piracy has no big impact on sales.

Originally Posted by CrimsonBlue

Also, check out the comments where you find link to the official forum administrator asking for scans of a magazine (he couldn't find it online).

Again, that's not very wise coming from an admin (especially as it's violating their own, clearly stated, forum rules), but you can't seriously compare asking for a scan of an article (that criticises you) for your private use, and illegal software distribution, can you?

[CrimsonBlue]

Who says I was comparing? I was just slightly shocked and disgusted by their behaviour. Your way ahead of yourself.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by CrimsonBlue

Who says I was comparing? I was just slightly shocked and disgusted by their behaviour. Your way ahead of yourself.

Posting that torrent link was way out of line, no doubt. But it's probably a judgement error of a forum admin instead of a PR mistake by the company. Even StarForce isn't THAT stupid.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by CrimsonBlue

Who says I was comparing?

Who says I say you were? Have you actually read that thread (before it was taken down)? People there accused StarForce of having double standards after the guy asked for a scan.

[insane_cobra]

Well, if it's the principle that counts, then those two things are pretty close.

[jjacob]

Still, it's pretty disgusting of the guy to do such a thing to a small developer - had it been an EA game I would've just laughed my arse off, but pickin on such a small game/developer seems like a very ill advised decision. And just IMO - I do suspect other SF people knew about this, I can hardly believe this was a one-man action. It just all sounds very typical of them and I wouldn't be surprised to learn "there's no such thing as bad press" was their company motto

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Interestingly, the news poster somehow neglected to mention that the link was a response to GalCiv developers' article about how they believe piracy doesn't hurt their game (as such, hardly being "making a case for using its product". At most "for using any copy protection system"). Let's just take 1up's word about much maligned developer sinking to a new low. Long live balanced journalism, I guess.

You missed it a little bit.

What happened was that a poster did create a link to that GalCiv article... and the site admin's post was in response to that link, using the link to the torrent and his message to try to refute the GalCiv article. The site admin's response is what the "making a case for using its product" bit was referring to. I.E. basically saying "Well, no, the GalCiv article is wrong, look, it's being pirated a bunch right here, guess they shoulda used StarForce after all."

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

On a side note: I hope folks do realise that GalCiv commercial success does not in any way back up the theory that piracy has no big impact on sales.

Perhaps. But I find it interesting that:

1. The CEO himself says that he feels his company's biggest financial troubles haven't been from piracy, but from publishers reneging on their royalty contracts.

2. There's an awful lot of people on the GalCiv forums who adore the no-DRM policy.

It does at least prove that you don't need DRM on your product to generate a lot of sales, and there *are* several folks who said lack of DRM helped make them choose to buy the game. IMHO, this is all something to keep a curious eye on. (Granted, I'm biased in that I think the GalCiv games are extremely fun, so I'd keep an eye on it anyway, but still...)

Originally Posted by Phantom

But it's probably a judgement error of a forum admin instead of a PR mistake by the company. Even StarForce isn't THAT stupid.

You have to be kidding with that last line. You have read some of what passes for official PR releases from the company, haven't you? Not saying it couldn't have been just an admin blunder, but StarForce has said its own fair share of dubious stuff.

Even if StarForce was 100% effective and harmless, I'd still be very reluctant to encourage use of a product from a company that tends to come off as a bunch of jerks on a regular basis.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

I hope folks do realise that GalCiv commercial success does not in any way back up the theory that piracy has no big impact on sales.

Btw, what backs up the theory that it does?

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

You missed it a little bit.

What happened was that a poster did create a link to that GalCiv article... and the site admin's post was in response to that link, using the link to the torrent and his message to try to refute the GalCiv article.

That's what I said, no?

The site admin's response is what the "making a case for using its product" bit was referring to. I.E. basically saying "Well, no, the GalCiv article is wrong, look, it's being pirated a bunch right here, guess they shoulda used StarForce after all."

Making a case for using any copy protection. Arguably. Arguably, because the link couldn't have proved GalCiv would be better off with a protection, as they provided no point of reference.

1. The CEO himself says that he feels his company's biggest financial troubles haven't been from piracy, but from publishers reneging on their royalty contracts.

And if he feels so, it must be true? But anyway, I don't see how it comes into CP discussion. Car crashes kill 400 times more people than international terrorism. Does it mean we don't have to care about the terrorists anymore?

2. There's an awful lot of people on the GalCiv forums who adore the no-DRM policy.

That's hardly shocking, isn't it? There is nothing to dislike about no-DRM policy. People adore freeware games, too, but that doesn't mean freeware is the most beneficial option for the developer, financially speaking.

It does at least prove that you don't need DRM on your product to generate a lot of sales,

Has anybody, anywhere, ever doubted that? The question is how DRM affects sales.

Granted, I'm biased in that I think the GalCiv games are extremely fun, so I'd keep an eye on it anyway, but still...

Even if they used StarForce?

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Btw, what backs up the theory that it does?

Common sense.

No, seriously, you're spot on in that I don't recall ever encountering a reliable study backing up either this theory or the opposite. Until then, though, my intuition tells me that piracy has negative impact on sales. Is it an irrational assumption?

[jjacob]

If you believe the studies that stated music piracy has boosted record sales, perhaps

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by jjacob

If you believe the studies that stated music piracy has boosted record sales, perhaps

Link? I'm open-minded; I may change my view. Note, however, that one or two anecdotal examples that it happened, however well-documented, are not a "study". I'd like to see some fairly scientifc take on that.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Common sense.

I just knew you're gonna say that.

Until then, though, my intuition tells me that piracy has negative impact on sales. Is it an irrational assumption?

Oh, it definitely hurts the sales, but to what extent?

[CrimsonBlue]

Common sense tells me that if the protection hurt the legal consumer, the protection will do more damage to the sales than if you don't. People will lose respect, and will give up buying originals because they can get it for free on the internet WITHOUT any hassle.

Raise your hands everyone who's downloaded an album because the original won't be copied to your MiniDisc or MP3 player?